911
See other 911 Articles
Title: 9/11 and Flight 175
Source:
Truth In 7 Minutes
URL Source: http://www.truthin7minutes.com/flig ... deo/?PC=flight-175-explanation
Published: Jun 11, 2015
Author: Markus Allen
Post Date: 2015-06-13 00:16:58 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 2382
Comments: 12
If someone asked me to reveal the #1 smoking-gun evidence that 9/11 was a hoax, I'd show them this short video about Flight 175: Many commenters on this video have (rightly) pointed out that this video has a whopper of an error... The two buildings that appear look like they're next to (or even behind) the Twin Towers: But in reality, these buildings (at both 17 Battery Place and 28 Washington Street) are indeed WAY in front of the viewing area as we see in this view from Battery Park: Also, the perspective of the view makes those two buildings appear to be taller than the Twin Towers (even though they're less than half the height). In addition, coming out of the Battery Tunnel (next to Battery Park where this video is alleged to have been taken) looks nothing like what is shown in this video... you'd have to be in the middle of a bunch of trees in the park. It's an impossible shot from on the ground. Now take a look at this snapshot from the video: As you can see above the tree line, many buildings are missing - including the 19 Rector Street building!!! Finally, the biggest smoking-gun evidence that this video is 100% CGI created is the lack of any blur... if this plane is going over 500 miles per hour, there's NO way an amateur photographer is going to capture this airplane without any blur. Click here to continue and see my ENTIRE 9/11 investigation... P.S. Have a look at my other investigations, videos and podcasts and get the real truth about life... 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Ok I looked at your first video. Can you show me a link from youtube that isn't this guys video that shows the same thing?
The building for which the video was supposedly clipped was the Downtown Athletic Club, where the Heisman Trophy used to be awarded. It is 518 feet tall. The upper southeast corner of the building (right side in video) is roughly 1920 feet from what was the southwest corner of the south WTC tower. The impact of flight 175 was roughly centered at about 1000 feet. These points define a right triangle: Adjacent leg, 1980 feet The plane was descending as it hit the south tower, so 980 feet was the altitude it would have descended to when it the south tower. The narrator of the video is ignorant at best, the Downtown Athletic Club building is south of the WTC, at 1:08 into the video he implies that it is north of the WTC when he states that the building is "clearly behind the World Trade Center." A little internet research shows that the Downtown Athletic Club building is in front of the World Trade Center. Flight 175 would have been roughly twice as high as the Downtown Athletic Club building when it flew over, meaning there is no way the wing should have appeared in front of the building. Just visualize the triangle, roughly a 4 to 1 ratio of adjacent to opposite, so 1 divide by 4 is 0.25, which arc tan gives an angle of about 14 degrees from the upper south east corner of the Downtown Athletic Club building. Simple mathematics and geography of NYC show that the maker of the video is full of crap. There is a 9-11 cover up, the cover up is how much aid Saudi diplomats provided the 9-11 hijackers. Saudi Arabia is our enemy, our corrupt ruling class is in bed with the corrupt monarchy that rules Arabia, so they will cover for their buddies in Riyadh. The building in front with the curved facade is the Whitehall Building Annex, I've never been to NYC but a little research shows all of this. And the maker of the video spent 12 years to reach the point where he makes a huge mistake.
The whole 9/11 ruse was masterminded by Mossad. All SA did was to supply the ID's of the patsies. Anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of physics would understand why it was impossible for a commercial 767 to reach a speed of 540 mph when their engines were only designed to reach a max speed of 350-400 mph, and that's at cruising altitude, ie: 35,000 ft. The planes used to hit the towers had to be military versions of the 767.
Maximum cruising speed for the 767 is Mach 0.86, at sea level this would be around 568 kts. TAS. Here is the Flight Track Log for Delta 581, which comleted a flight yesterday from SEA to HND. The westbound flight is going against the jet stream, yet even accounting for that this 767-300 spent hours defying your laws of physics with a ground speed in excess of 400 kts, when flying against the jet stream, which means TAS was almost certainly higher. And I'm using knots, your MPH would be about 115% of that figure. Saudi diplomats in the US provided logistic support to the 9-11 hijackers, Mossad may have known about it, their primary loyalty is to Israel, not the US. From their perspective a war that led to the ouster of Saddam was a good thing, of course for us it was a bad thing since he was a pretty useful monster whom it made no sense to go abroad and destroy.
Your conspiracy theory works great....until you factor into the equation the fact that Boeing is still manufacturing upgraded versions of the 767 to this very day. You're comparing apples and oranges. Flight 175 was manufactured in the late 80's/ early 90's, which makes it a totally different plane than what you're comparing it to. Get the manufacturing date of delta flight 581 and get back to me.
There are no replies to Comment # 11. End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: A K A Stone (#1)
Ok I looked at your first video. Can you show me a link from youtube that isn't this guys video that shows the same thing?
Opposite leg, 480 feet
Hypotenuse will be 2037 feet according to Pythagoras.
#7. To: nativist nationalist (#4)
#10. To: Logsplitter, A K A Stone (#7)
Anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of physics would understand why it was impossible for a commercial 767 to reach a speed of 540 mph when their engines were only designed to reach a max speed of 350-400 mph, and that's at cruising altitude, ie: 35,000 ft.
#11. To: nativist nationalist (#10)
Replies to Comment # 11.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]